Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 10846–10853 | Cite as

Testing the EKC hypothesis for ten US states: an application of heterogeneous panel estimation method

  • Cem IşıkEmail author
  • Serdar Ongan
  • Dilek Özdemir
Research Article
  • 290 Downloads

Abstract

This study aims to test the EKC (Environmental Kuznets Curve) hypothesis for the ten states, having the highest levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the USA, through the independent variables of real GDP, population, and renewable energy and fossil energy consumptions. To this aim, the panel estimation method with cross-sectional dependence is applied to data from 1980 to 2015. The empirical findings of the study indicate that the EKC (inverted U-shaped) hypothesis is valid only for Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. Interestingly, the negative impacts of fossil energy consumption on CO2 emission levels in Texas are not detected statistically although this state is the leading oil-producing state. Furthermore, the positive impacts of renewable energy consumption in Florida, officially known as “Sunshine State”, are considerably low when compared with the other states.

Keywords

CO2 emissions Fossil energy Renewable energy Population and cross-sectional dependence Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) GDP 

Jel classification

Q00 Q2 Q3 Q5 

Notes

References

  1. Aldy JE (2005) An environmental Kuznets curve analysis of US state-level carbon dioxide emissions. J Environ Dev 14(1):48–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alshehry AS, Belloumi M (2015) Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: the case of Saudi Arabia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni J, Levinson A (2001) The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. J Public Econ 80:269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ang JB (2007) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy 35(10):4772–4778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apergis N, Christou C, Gupta R (2017) Are there environmental Kuznets curves for US state-level CO2 emissions? Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atasoy BS (2017) Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across the US: evidence from panel mean group estimators. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77:731–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckerman, W., 1992. Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment?Google Scholar
  8. Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Census (2018) US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/data.html
  10. De-Vita G, Katircioglu S, Altinay L, Fethi S, Mercan M (2015) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in a tourism development context. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(21):16652–16663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO 2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1203–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dogan E (2017) CO2 emissions, real GDP, renewable energy and tourism: evidence from panel of the Most-visited countries. Statistika 97(3):63–76Google Scholar
  13. EIA (2018) U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/
  14. Farhani S, Mrizak S, Chaibi A, & Rault C (2014) The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 71, 189–198Google Scholar
  15. FED (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) (2017) Economic research. https://research.stlouisfed.org/Farhani
  16. Chaibi SA, Rault C (2014) CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and trade in Tunisia. Econ Model 38:426–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37(3):1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanif P, Gago-de-Santos (2017) The importance of population control and macroeconomic stability to reducing environmental degradation: an empirical test of the environmental Kuznets curve for developing countries. Environ Dev 23(3):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46(6):1251–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Isik, C. (2010) Natural gas consumption and economic growth in Turkey: a bound test approach. Energy Systems, 1(4), 441–456Google Scholar
  21. Isik C, & Shahbaz M (2015) Energy consumption and economic growth: a panel data aproach to OECD countries. International Journal of Energy Science, 5(1).  https://doi.org/10.12783/ijes.2015.0501.01
  22. Isik C, Dogru T, Turk ES (2018) A nexus of linear and non-linear relationships between tourism demand, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: theory and evidence. Int J Tour Res 20(1):38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Isik C, Kasımatı E, Ongan S (2017) Analyzing the causalities between economic growth, financial development, international trade, tourism expenditure and/on the CO2 emissions in Greece. Energy Sources Part B 12(7):665–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isik C, Radulescu M (2017) Investigation of the relationship between renewable energy, tourism receipts and economic growth in Europe. Statistika: Statistics and Economy. Journal 97(2):85–94Google Scholar
  25. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37(12):5167–5172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jayanthakumaran K, Verma R, Liu Y (2012) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy 42:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kasman A, Duman Y (2015) CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Econ Model 44:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katircioglu ST (2014a) International tourism, energy consumption, and environmental pollution: the case of Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 36(2014):180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katircioglu ST (2014b) Estimating higher education induced energy consumption: the case of northern Cyprus. Energy 66:831–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee JW, Brahmasrene T (2013) Investigating the influence of tourism on economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from panel analysis of the European Union. Tour Manag 38:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. León CJ, Arana JE, Hernández AA (2014) CO2 Emissions and tourism in developed and less developed countries. Appl Econ Lett 21(16):1169–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magnani E (2001) The environmental Kuznets curve: development path or policy result? Environ Model Softw 16:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McConnell KE (1997) Income and the demand for environmental quality. Environ Dev Econ 2:383–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Omri A, Daly S, Rault C, Chaibi A (2015) Financial development, environmental quality, trade and economic growth: what causes what in MENA countries. Energy Econ 48:242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orubu CO, Omotor DG (2011) Environmental quality and economic growth: searching for environmental Kuznets curves for air and water pollutants in Africa. Energy Policy 39(7):4178–4188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(9):3220–3225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. In: Working paper WP238. Technology and Employment Programme, International Labour Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. Pablo-Romero MDP, De Jesús J (2016) Economic growth and energy consumption: the energy-environmental Kuznets curve for Latin America and the Caribbean. Renew Sust Energ Rev 60:1343–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16(3):289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rafiq S, Salim R, Nielsen I (2016) Urbanization, openness, emissions, and energy intensity: a study of increasingly urbanized emerging economies. Energy Econ 56:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing BT (2007) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ 62(3):482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soytas U, Sari R (2009) Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol Econ 68(6):1667–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24:1151–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32(8):1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stokey NL (1998) Are there limits to growth? Int Econ Rev 39(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suri V, Chapman D (1998) Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25(2):195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of TourismAnadolu UniversityEskişehirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSt. Mary’s College of MarylandSt. Mary’s CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsAtatürk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations